[emann]

For a set of cheaper IEM's to sound as good or better then an expensive pair? My UE 700's ($220) are supposed to arrive any minute now and I'm worried that they won't sound any better then my Sony EX75's ($50). Basically I'm just asking does spending more usually make a difference in sound quality?

 

[lifesundeath]

What's your source? Are you using an amp? These things will make the headphones flaws show up clearly. But yah, some headphones are way overpriced, and some undervalued. The Grado sr60's, for instance, are really inexpensive, sound great, but they are mad cheap feeling and uncomfortable. But when it comes down to it, it's all up to personal preference because quality is highly subjective.

 

[logwed]

It all depends on what you like to hear. Maybe you like the boomier bass from the Sony's (btw, this is totally hypothetical, don't know what either sound like) than the clarity of the UEs.

 

[appophylite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by emann /img/forum/go_quote.gif For a set of cheaper IEM's to sound as good or better then an expensive pair? My UE 700's ($220) are supposed to arrive any minute now and I'm worried that they won't sound any better then my Sony EX75's ($50). Basically I'm just asking does spending more usually make a difference in sound quality?

Sound quality is entirely subjective. there are times when I am more in the mood for the sound signature of my PortaPros than the sound signature of my Klipsch X10, and at times like that, it feels like the money spent on the Klipsch was wasted, but there are other times when my mood goes the other way. I have managed to successfully prove to people that the KSC 75 and the PortaPro are both cheaper than the Bose Triport and sound better for the money, but there are others who have just stone-walled me and refuse to acknowledge that the Triports are anything less than perfection, and there have been a few who agree that the PortaPro is in fact a better sound, but then refuse to believe that they are cheaper until shown online.

 

[emann]

I'm using an Apple iPod Nano with all of my songs ripped at 128 kbps. Yes I know that's not a real good bit rate but I have to be able to fit a lot of songs on this thing as I have 1500 cd's to pull my favorite songs from. No amp, though I'm open to getting one if need be. The only experience I have so far comparing is I bought a pair of ($5) Maxell earbuds and compared them to my ($50) Sony's. The Maxell sounded HORRIBLE in comparison!!! I also compared my ($100) Alessandro MS-1's to a pair of ($30) Aiwa full sized headphones and the Aiwa's sounded horrible in comparison.

 

[lifesundeath]

Well there you have it. But seriously dude, 128k rips are no good. When I first started burning cd's and what not around 1998, even then I could tell a 128k rip, and this is playing it through my crappy car stereo at the time, it's that's noticeable. The higher up you go in quality rips the less you can tell, but why not just rip at the highest possible quality (320k) and see how it sounds. It's starting to sound to me like you're really trying to stay on a budget, in which case, I'd just worry about getting a bigger ipod next and forget an amp or new phones.

 

[qusp]

dont bother amping until you get some decent quality rips; IMO that is where you should start; forget the headphones

 

[emann]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifesundeath /img/forum/go_quote.gif When I first started burning cd's and what not around 1998, even then I could tell a 128k rip, and this is playing it through my crappy car stereo at the time, it's that's noticeable. The higher up you go in quality rips the less you can tell, but why not just rip at the highest possible quality (320k) and see how it sounds. It's starting to sound to me like you're really trying to stay on a budget, in which case, I'd just worry about getting a bigger ipod next and forget an amp or new phones.

Nope. I don't have much of a budget as I make really good money, I do have some other expensive hobbies though. Unfortunantely they don't make a bigger iPod Nano then the 16GB and I like a lot of songs. I have almost 2500 songs on it and I'm not going to give up almost half of them for a little bit better sound. Now if they ever decide to get off of their butts and make a 32GB I might be in business for 192 or or even 256 kbps. I just don't like the Touch (it's to big) and that's the only other one available that has more memory. Well flash drive memory which I want anyway.

 

[appophylite]

Quote:

Originally Posted by emann /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nope. I don't have much of a budget as I make really good money, I do have some other expensive hobbies though. Unfortunantely they don't make a bigger iPod Nano then the 16GB and I like a lot of songs. I have almost 2500 songs on it and I'm not going to give up almost half of them for a little bit better sound. Now if they ever decide to get off of their butts and make a 32GB I might be in business for 192 or or even 256 kbps. I just don't like the Touch (it's to big) and that's the only other one available that has more memory. Well flash drive memory which I want anyway.

If that is honestly how you feel, you might want to hold off on buying anything higher end (with regards to headphones and amps) until later. The better the headphones get, the more blatantly bad those MP3 rips are going to sound. 192 kbps MP3 is the base minimum IMO for decent quality sound and a good 40 % of my collection is ripped to that. I haven't listened to the UE700 personally, but if you are planning on sticking to 128 kbps MP3, I have a feeling that the quality of your music is going to sound better out of your Sony EX75s because they will probably be less revealing.

 

[qusp]

absolutely; more SQ in headphones means less SQ showing in your crappy rips. is there really any need to have your whole collection with you at any one time?? I have far more than I can even fit on my 120gb diymod, but that doesnt mean I shrink the quality of my rips to suit; seems obvious to me to reduce the size of the library I bring with me and increase enjoyment. honestly if you are stuck there I would leave now before you spend money that you'll regret.

otherwise we'll be hearing from you in a few weeks time with a thread titled $50 vs 200 headphones; is it really worth it??

 

[emann]

Honestly I do agree with you guys somewhat which is why I didn't go with the Shure SE530's I considered. But to answer your question "do you really need to have your whole collection with you at any one time?" yes I guess I do. That said I am thinking about re-ripping all of my stuff at 192 kbps but do you have any idea how much of a pain in the ass that is going to be.

 

[lifesundeath]

Are we getting trolled here? I have the feeling we're getting trolled...I'm ejecting from this thread.

 

[emann]

Curious as to why you would think you're getting trolled??? I've been a member here for 5 years. Just haven't posted much as I had 2 kids and a lot of other stuff going on to worry about.

 

[toughnut]

No matter how good your IEM, u still bottlenecked to your 128kbps files. Actually those highend IEM are even less forgiving and might make your listening experience worst. Unless u start listening to >256kbps files, anything u do will be worthless.

 

[emann]

Quote:

Originally Posted by toughnut /img/forum/go_quote.gif No matter how good your IEM, u still bottlenecked to your 128kbps files. Actually those highend IEM are even less forgiving and might make your listening experience worst. Unless u start listening to >256kbps files, anything u do will be worthless.

I noticed that my iTunes account has the option for 160 kbps rips. Would this be a noticeable improvement over 128? I don't think I could ever go over 192 as I'd just have to give up to many songs for me. I guess I'm just trying to find the best of both worlds, sound and quantity wise. Thanx.